July the 4th – What Does it Mean?

4767-Congress_voting_independence-thumb-300x218-4766.jpg

Today marks the 235th anniversary when 56 representatives from the 13 colonies declared independence from King George III of England and formed the United States of America. They took an oath that day and pledged their fortunes and their lives to see it though.
_______________

The desire to create a new nation was well under way by the time the 2nd Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1775. The battles of Lexington and Concord had already been fought. Passions were running high and Congress was tasked with managing the war… should it come to that.

During the year of 1775 bands of patriots formed militia units. They in turn seized munitions stores from the British whenever they could and their numbers grew. They expelled British politicians from their districts and eventually laid siege to the English Army garrisoned in Boston.

By the 15th of June, 1775, Congress declared that all militia units shall be formed into the Continental Army. Congressman George Washington of Virginia was quickly appointed as the commanding general. However, to declare an all out war was by no means a unanimous decision among delegates nor many of the colonists. Congress therefore made one last effort to reconcile with King George on July 8th, 1775, but it was doomed to failure because they were past the point of no return.

Within weeks the colonies further infuriated King George when they opened their ports to international trade in defiance of the British Navigation’s Act. War was drawing ever near.

Then on May 15, 1776, Congress passed a resolution authored by John Adams that suspended allegiance to the Crown and removed any British authority from Colonial government. This was followed shortly by another landmark resolution that was even more controversial. This resolution called for a declaration of independence and it was penned by Richard Henry Lee. Lee urged Congress to declare independence and “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly-independent states. Lee was asked to write the declaration of independence, but he deferred to his friend Thomas Jefferson who was only 32 years old at the time. It took 17 days to write.

Congress approved Lee’s resolution and this was followed by Jefferson’s “Declaration for Independence”. After two days for minor revisions, the final draft for independence was approved on July 4, 1776. On that day, we declared to the world that this nation shall be free from the rule of tyrants in any form and we shall be forever self-governing.

The Constitution of the United States was then written to embrace the fundamental moral principals as found in the Christian Bible. These principles or truths are. . .”that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And to this day these basic principles define us and set us apart from all other nations.

The challenge of today’s generation and all future generations will be to defend our liberty and restrain our own government from doing for us what we can better do for ourselves – and further to limit it’s authority over us to only that which is granted by our founders in the Constitution. If we can do that we have done a great deal.

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to July the 4th – What Does it Mean?

  1. Harriet says:

    Should be printed and sent to schools, well done.

    Watching the Sacramento News last night at 10pm, one of the news castors was out talking to folks watching the Fireworks display, She spoke to a young girl about 8-10 yrs. She did not know why we were celebrating, the news person looked at the mom who was about 30 and said “I forgot”. I was appalled, She forgot!!!!

    I realize American History is not taught like it once was, but surely a better job can be done.

  2. Quentin Colgan says:

    Not to worry.
    I, too, wonder sometimes what all the fuss is about.
    235 years later we are EXACTLY where we were–STUCK with an unresponsive government (to us, the people, anyway).
    One might think, with all of our acquiescence to totalitarianism these days*, that ANYone remembers what July 4th, 1776 was about!

    *Hell, we even have modern-day Tories (known as TEA Partiers) ensuring “The Crown” doesn’t lose this time. There may have been change at one time, but unfortunately, we have changed back.
    I am afraid we will stay back.

  3. Post Scripts says:

    Tea Party members are not Tories! They are more like the Americans dressed as Indians that threw the British tea into the harbor, thus their name or did you miss that most obvious and deliberate connection? They are patriots opposed to oppression and taxation without representation.

    This was the first tea partier’s passion and it lives on today in ordinary men and women dedicated to the proposition that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are our heritage and words to live by. That a small government that serves only the basic needs of the people works best. That limited taxation for essentials such as roads, military and bridges, etc., is all that we should be taxed to support and that the money from the labors of citizens should not be squandered.

    The Tea Party revolution means citizens united for fiscal responsibility and accountability in government. That is all it has meant. And that is all it will ever mean. Anything else you might hear are the lone voices who do not represent the Tea Party revolt. The real Tea Party is open to all patriots and it was founded and intended to be nonpartisan. They do not speak on social issues – only financial matters – and that too was its foundation.

  4. Quentin Colgan says:

    Au Contraire!
    The Tories were the few fools who actually thought the rulers being in bed with multinational corporations was a GOOD thing. They opposed any attempts at Liberty for Americans.
    The TEA party in Wisconsin opposed reforms. They stood arm-in-arm with the corporatists AGAINST their fellow citizens. Much as the TORIES stood AGAINST their fellow citizens.
    Study up on your history, Jack.
    It seems as you have ZERO clue a to who the good guys were then and even less of a clue who the BAD guys are now!!!
    I did not miss the connection, Jack.
    The TEA partiers have! You only THINK you’re a patriot. You only THINK the TEA Party is an appropriate name. The original TEA Partiers were NOT revolting against the crown. They were revolting against the incestuous relationship between their government and a certain multinational corporation known as the East India Tea Company. This is exactly what America faces now, yet damn near EVERY position you and Tina take are the positions of the multinational corporatists/Fascists. I have news for you sir: Americans OPPOSE fascism. You TEA Partiers EMBRACE Fascism. HUGE difference, my friend!!!

    Nonpartisan????
    Oh Please!!!!!
    ANY democrat who joins is a “phony” TEA partier. That was made clear in a recent NY Congressional race.

    “They are patriots opposed to oppression and taxation without representation.” Jeez!
    What was that last month when you thought it was a good idea for college kids to be taxed and NOT have representation on the city council????????????
    I guess yer gonna tell me all those letters to the editor were from “the lone voices who do not represent the Tea Party revolt.”
    I suppose next you’ll tell me the TEA Party had nothing to do with Meaure A!
    Uh huh.
    Well, OK, Jack. MAYBE they were. BUT you gotta tell those clowns they are making you ALL look ridiculous!!!

    BTW, Is “States’ Rights” another “Social issue” that you’re going to ignore? Or, will you be downtown tonight when the Republicans on the city council mention the federal illegality of marijuana in an attempt to shoot down what our citizens want? I note none of you “Less government intrusion into our lives” types showed up when the county board of supervisors was passing an intrusive big government law into our lives last month.

    Y’know, Jack, I tell all my friends out of town that maybe their local TEA Party types are real. You know, they mean what they say, and say what they mean. But up here in Chico? Chico’s TEA Party is a friggin’ joke. They could not pass a high school civics exam!
    At your meeting next week?
    Have a study group on principles! And civics!
    AND the TEA Party of 1773.
    You will be surprised at what you learn!

    You see Jack, us crazy liberals actually BELIEVE what you only give lip-service to: the equality guaranteed to the PEOPLE by The Constitution.
    The TEA Party has yet to discover WHY we lack equality. when you finally figure it out, Jack, you’ll wonder What you were doing in the TEA Party!
    I guarantee it!

  5. Tina says:

    Q: “The TEA party in Wisconsin opposed reforms. They stood arm-in-arm with the corporatists AGAINST their fellow citizens. Much as the TORIES stood AGAINST their fellow citizens.”

    Interesting. Tea Party citizens are demonized as standing against their fellow citizens in Wisconsin. But Quentin said in comments on another occassion that unions are corporations…something for which I would agree. As such this corporation of citizens called “teachers union” conspired with the Democrats against taxpayers. They arranged a bargaining right that resulted in making agreements the state could not meet without placing undue burden on it’s citizens. Instead of taking care of their own healthcare and pension needs union members willfully ransome the children to make unreasonable demands of their fellow citizens.

    Tea Party opposition to this fascist arrangement is understood by Q to be rigid. He likens their distaste for thug demands that break the states budget to corporatism, a ridiculous comparison.

    Teachers union demands would be bad enough (fascist) were the “product” produced by the teachers union (well educated kids prepared for adulthood) of superior quality; sadly the union can’t even make this claim nationwide.

    Quentin, who claims to be outside the partisan sphere is actually either reading the Daily Kos or is channeling the same. See here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947470/-Tea-Party-Tories

    I always though that the Tea Party would have been on the side of the Tories, not the Founding Fathers. The recent events in Wisconsin have reinforced that belief. Can anyone doubt that the Founding Fathers would have been on the side of the working people, the citizens of Wisconsin in standing against the oppression of Scott Walker and his corporate backers?

    How is what Scott Walker is doing any different than what the King of England and his corporate backers were doing – exploiting and enslaving Americans for the benefit of the British Empire and corporate profit? The people of American stood up to oppression then, we need to do it again. If the Tea Party really believes in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, then why isn’t the Tea Party with us in that fight?

    Later he shared his understanding of the founding docs:

    My understanding of these great ideals is more along these lines:

    I believe that government is instituted by us, for us, the citizens, to be our agent to secure life, liberty, and happiness. I admit that the original founders were primarily concerned with the rights of rich, well connected, white men. However, subsequent amendments, statutes, and case law have expanded the rights and protections under the law to all Americans regardless of ethnic or racial background, gender, income level, or sexual orientation.

    A progressive manifesto, a laundry list if you will, baring not the slightest resemblance to the ideals set forth in the founding documents and particularly avoiding the “endowed by their creator” segment that is the essence of the entire delaration. Rights instituted by men can be overturned by men, changed by men to suit their own ends and dessires. Rights secured and bestowed by a higher power cannot be taken away or changed…period. It is an “exceedingly restful” certainty!

    Quentin you may know a few facts about history but the structure upon which you build your understanding is unsound. Your propensity to discuss only those that seem to prove your theories is suspect. Your vision, and therefore your conclusion, is warped and in some cases borders on the paranoid. (All corporate activity is bad and involves conspiracy against the people)

    Q is quite possibly also reading this site…and if not is surely aligned:

    http://www.politicususa.com/en/tea-party-tories

    d the Tea Party like to think of themselves as freedom fighters in the mold of the Founding Fathers, but a closer look reveals that their revolution is really devolution, because at its core, conservatism is about returning to the past. Upon examination it turns out the Tea Party has more in common with King George, than the Founding Fathers.

    Conservatism is the most common attitude in the history of mankind. Conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo both with regards to the customs and the institutions of the past. The reason is simple: most people are not comfortable with new ideas or their application.

    Quentin you constantly berate others for failing to express original thoughts; you are also not shy about expressing your disdain for cut and paste. But I have to say that your “thoughts” certainly bear a striking resemblance to those of the very progressive Daily Kos and Politicus usa.

    Maybe you could use a study group on honesty and what it means to be a progressive sympathizer. whatever it is you beoieve it certainly isn’t grounded in the founding documents.

  6. Tina says:

    Those interested in the Boston Tea Party can find information here:

    http://www.heritage-education.com/article_americanheritageteaparty.htm

    Libertairian CATO has an interesting point about the BTP (from 2001) here:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v23n1/tea-party.pdf

Comments are closed.